E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | PTAB Life Sciences Report »

November 05, 2017

Comments

Hey Michael,

This case is more than schizophrenic-it's the ultimate Catch-22 on patent-eligibility. First, the broken and nonsensical Mayo/Alice framework conflates 101 with 102/103 by requiring a "novel concept." Then, the Federal Circuit holds in Two-Way Media that evidence relating to novelty/unobvious is inadmissible. Again, I could do better with a Ouija board in trying to determine what is and is not patent-eligible under 101.

Michael,

I commend you on both a fine a write-up and some very interesting analysis in finding a distinction between Amdocs and Two-Way Media. I can't help, however, wondering if this isn't a "distinction without a difference," at least for purposes of ascertaining patent eligibility. The claim in Amdocs was rather broad and functional; nonetheless, the Amdocs panel appears to have used the specification to "flesh out" the meaning of the claim's enhancing limitation. I don't dispute that you're on to something here, but I doubt this sort of commentary would have ever been required for any one of the decisions penned by Judge Rich. Sigh.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

November 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30